That’s my default view too. Best case, all sides hike tariffs then make a deal to cut tariffs and implement some BS that allows Trump to claim a win and then the whole thing moves to the next one (tariffs against EU?).
However, the mood I’m sensing from the Canadians is that nobody is in the mood to entertain Trump’s BS.
Everything is red today, even Vanguard fees! 
Vanguard further cuts their fees: Vanguard funds with reduced fees for selected share classes
E.g.
Yay!
Now we will all become rich much faster!
Maybe not much but faster yes
Example calculation:
Start with 100k, monthly investment of 2k, yearly gain 5% (for simplicity constant 5%, no ups/downs).
20 years later it looks like this:
End amount with TER 0.07: $1,069,951
End amount with TER 0.06: $1,071,414
Difference: $1,462.98
Percentage improvement: 0.137%
Or in other words, Vanguard gifted everyone an iPhone or 5x Android Phones today 
Nope. In 20 years the price of a smartphone must be corrected for inflation. You get $1462.98 savings in 2045 dollars. In the current dollars it is waaaay less.
But nonetheless it is pleasant. It is surely better than nothing! But in a grand scheme of things it is negligeable.
Tariffs for Mexico already on hold for 1 month 
If you assume same inflation rate the next 20 years as the last 20 years, you could still buy your iPhone in 2045 that costs today ~850$
But yeah, its not a huge deal.
It’s all wrong! You’ll get paid to use a smartphone in 2045
This 1 bps cut feels really gimmicky, as I want to have a part of my portfolio in UCITS: Vanguard has FTSE Developed at 12 bps and FTSE Emerging at 22 bps. And no Small Caps.
Hey, Vanguard, would you do something in the UCITS land? Will you continue lagging all large asset managers there, even Credit Agricole better known as Amundi? It’s a shame.
These 20 cents per day really do add up after 20 years don’t they?
Not to a cheapsk… meant “mustachian”. These are real serious considerations. Life choices are made over basis points.
Much as I like Bogle, Vanguard feels behind the curve in some aspects, whereas Blackrock seems more up to date. That said, google translate and the LLMs could translate all their documents, KIDS etc and get us UCITS versions to their US-only ETFs.
Pennies to you, USD 350M to Vanguard.
I applaud them for doing this. Nobody forced them to.
Also, in the words of Eric Balchunas (highlighting mine):
Vanguard just did the biggest fee cut ever across 87 MFs and ETFs. This is why the Terrordome is the Terrordome. Vanguard created it, and now everyone else (except for private equity and a handful of HFs) has to live in it.
(Source)
It’s not about translations. UCITS requires KIDs to include forward-looking performance scenarios while the SEC prohibits or at least heavily restricts funds from including forward-looking statements in their documentation (as they can be misleading). This means that it is practically impossible to have a US-domiciled UCITS fund. I’m not familiar with the details but that’s my rough understanding.
A few years ago I read about an EU motion that wants to fix this incompatibility. I don’t know whether that might still happen or whether it was abandoned.
A more appropriate one for today
(PLTR keeping my ptf afloat)
That‘s by design, I‘m very confident about that.
The ucits regulators were fully aware of that. This was done to purposefully exclude EU citizens from buying US funds to prop up the local finance industry.
Right, fair enough, then why don’t they provide the exact same funds just with an IE UCITS wrapper? It’s odd not to have VTI for instance. Anyway, off topic.
I think it’s because S&P 500 is most popular and most demanded ETF in Europe
VTI is an American thing and of course for bogleheads too 
Because of scaling and cost. VTI also includes all the small illiquid stocks. Like over 3000.
If your fund has many billions in size, that‘s not a problem.
But if you are in ucits land and set up a fund, you will not gather close to as much aum and then having these small illiquid stocks will cause unreasonably high costs for the fund.
That‘s basically why all of the ucits funds mostly only include large to mid-caps.
For example VWRL is only large and mid caps, mirroring the ftse all world index with about 3500 stocks. While VT has about 10K and mirrors the ftse all world all cap.
Although VWRL is probably big enough at this point to be able to include them without causing too much cost.
SPYI for example tracks the acwi imi with ~9K stocks, but still uses sampling and has effectively about 3.5K in it. Same reason.
It may stop sampling when it gets bigger.
I am not sure it is 100% so. Vanguard offers VEVE and VFEM that collectively can be made to track FTSE All World with all 4000+ stocks, without any sampling, while VWRL makes the choice to sample out mid/small caps.
iShares EMIM now does a full replication of emerging markets, including small caps, which is apparently more difficult to trade than small caps in DM. They do it for 18 bps. Vanguard has mutual funds tracking MSCI World Small Caps without sampling for 24 bps.
I think Vanguard in Europe does not get any interest from the management; moreover, Vanguard UCITS offerings do not have the cooperative structure of U.S. Vanguard, making it just a cash cow for Vanguard. It looks like they want to take profits and not to grow.
A bigger question is whether investing in VT, which is much better than anything on offer in Europe, still makes sense given the geopolitical risks you expose yourself to to save a couple dozen bps.
That’s a question for another topic, but is it “much” better, or is it psychological? Yes VT has “everything” (actually VTI+VXUS has even more!) but does the inclusion of obscure small caps make any material difference? Looking at VT vs SSAC the difference is laughably small, and likely attributed to their cost difference rather than their contents.
I agree, that’s my impression too. Blackrock seems more interested to offer more of an up-to-date offering.
